Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Why do you so badly want to believe this shit? What will it take for you to change your mind? My Wikipedia article says 60,000 peer reviewed articles. Subego finds the number possibly dubious, so to avoid that squabble let's say it is 30,000 instead.

Is that enough? Let's say it is 100,000 instead. Will that be enough, or sun spots? How about 500,000? Your pope has already acknowledged global warming, so maybe 500,000 plus Jesus Christ riding a hippo through the streets of Las Vegas?

Has anybody called your stubborn before? Let it go. Embrace science, it's good for you.

When it's thousands of the world's top scientists vs. Chongo's limited Googling skills, I think the appeal to authority is valid.

Then he can present the case, instead of hand wave, spit out some dismissive sarcastic junk, and expect the discussion is just over (and then have the gall to get upset when it isn't). If he doesn't even want to do that, then he can choose not to engage at all.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr

I guess I was being a little stubborn. All of this scientific consensus must mean something. I'm sorry for causing you to suffer, besson3c.

Originally Posted by BadKosh

I'm not as knowledgeable about climate change as scientists that have put years of work into studying this (the vast majority of them concluding the same thing). I'm also sorry to have made you suffer, besson3c. I'll just stick to obsessing over Hilary's emails

Really? You thought that would be helpful? Quote-mining without context? What was I thinking? You only come here to stir the pot, you're virtually unseen unless it's time to give the paddle a good turn.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr

Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?

Status:
Offline

Aug 9, 2017, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Any other suggestions, Laminar?

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

If they have no understanding of or respect for the merits of the scientific method, appealing to its virtues will fall on deaf ears.

As long as there's a voice out there telling them what they want to hear, they have no reason to listen to any other voice.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

"Progressed"? Since he works for NASA, I guess he does.

Wait, who was just complaining about appeals to authority? BadKosh does IT work, right?

Really? You thought that would be helpful? Quote-mining without context? What was I thinking? You only come here to stir the pot, you're virtually unseen unless it's time to give the paddle a good turn.

You suggested that someone who is not a scientist take scientific data and make a case for AGW, because that would be an effective method for those that doubt the existence of AGW.

I responded with a list of quotes. Multiple choice, who was I quoting:

But as always, you've managed to turn the conversation away from why your suggestion was a poor one, to me defending some weird facet of the content of my post. Brilliant, really, as long as you have no interest in productive discussion.

You can only have such a discussion if all sides are grounded in facts. What good would it do when discussing the nuances of the topic if the person you are talking to think the scientific community commits fraud on a global scale for grant money (without providing any evidence for such an extraordinary claim)? If you post a link to a scientific study or a report and the person you are talking to can always choose to dismiss it, because the scientists who have contributed are in on it. What good would that do?

Wait, who was just complaining about appeals to authority? BadKosh does IT work, right?

It's not an A2A if you're stating a guy works at a place, and that he probably knows some people there. That's all I was saying. Geez.

You suggested that someone who is not a scientist take scientific data and make a case for AGW,

WTF? I did not. None of us are climatologists, or physicists (I think we had one of the latter at one time, but they grew tired of the bitching around here), or any type of proper research scientist. Some of us have science backgrounds or research and technical degrees, that aren't in the theoretical sciences, but that's it.

Ugh, how did I get to this? Oh, you butted in when I was talking to Oreo, that's right. /ignore

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr

Why not go in the other direction. Unless Chongo and BK absolutely deny all possibility of AGW, they'd make the list. Which is one of the things which struck me about this whole debate after entering into it fresh a few weeks ago.

There's a startling need, on almost everybody's part, to be binary.

Originally Posted by subego

,

Are either of you claiming it's impossible humans are running the planet?

Great point. Since we can all agree that humans aren't exactly helping the Earth's climate, we all "believe" in AGW, according to the "who supports the theory of AGW" stats. We'd all be part of the 98%, whether we like it or not.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr

So you'll accept sloppy 'science' as fact when REAL scientists are discussing the methodology and are having serious questions about it. I did astronomy as a hobby in high school. i ground my own 8" mirror while in 9th grade, read all the Astronomy and Sky and Telescope mags and read physics and astronomy books I could get my hands on. Sure, it was a hobby, but I did learn a lot of what was going on. When I started at NASA I spent time with many planetary scientists as I fixed their computers. Much was just me asking them how they knew, or were able to discover about various subjects from how you can build an image from heat waves, or how they knew what was going on inside the sun, or even discussing unmanned exploration devices. They were happy to talk to me because I wasn't asking stupid beginner questions. I was on-site support when they had these meetings and such. While I don't understand the really complex stuff during some of these meetings that became heated discussions, after a while you knew who knew their stuff and who didn't or was being political. Some of these scientists and engineers had other hobbies in common with me and we'd talk about that. Some of these scientists were my friends.

Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?

Status:
Offline

Aug 10, 2017, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

WTF? I did not.

Here's how I read it:

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

Yes you are, and what's more, you do it every time the anthropogenic climate change subject comes up; you make an appeal to authority, unleash the self-righteous indignation, and then act appalled when people continue to try and talk despite you being visibly annoyed. I can practically set my watch by it.

"Every time AGW comes up, you appeal to the authority of the world's top climatologists and expect people to respect their findings"

Originally Posted by Laminar

When it's thousands of the world's top scientists vs. Chongo's limited Googling skills, I think the appeal to authority is valid.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

Then he can present the case, instead of hand wave, spit out some dismissive sarcastic junk, and expect the discussion is just over (and then have the gall to get upset when it isn't). If he doesn't even want to do that, then he can choose not to engage at all.

"Oreo should present the case [for AGW] instead of pointing to the top minds in the field and their findings."

having a degree or several in the area of work, and publishing relevant work. There is a lot to the work from working with others with similar education and either doing the research, gathering data and publishing results or being in the mold of an experimenter and trying to verify theories. Some are QA types who look at what others are doing. Politics should not be involved. Some science is pure science with numbers, formulas etc. Physics, astronomy etc.

Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?

Status:
Offline

Aug 10, 2017, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

having a degree or several in the area of work, and publishing relevant work. There is a lot to the work from working with others with similar education and either doing the research, gathering data and publishing results or being in the mold of an experimenter and trying to verify theories. Some are QA types who look at what others are doing. Politics should not be involved. Some science is pure science with numbers, formulas etc. Physics, astronomy etc.

Would you say that the scientists you know are real scientists, but the scientists studying climate change are not real scientists?

Perhaps we could encourage those who disbelieve AGW to invest in seafront property. Or anything near the ocean and within a meter of sea level. Quite a bit of Florida and Louisiana qualify, but other coastal states have good choices too.

If they are right, those depressed properties will return to full value as the scam passes. Easy profit margin.

If the sloppy scientists are right, those properties will transfer to Davy Jones's locker, and the disbelievers will go to the cleaners. Or their grandchildren will become homeless when the tide comes in. The timing is somewhat uncertain.

That merely pointing and saying, "I'm not going to even bother debating because 98% of scientists agree with this", and then just being sarcastic and dismissive, isn't a side of a debate.

(Especially, as subego pointed out, when the threshold for "agreement" is so absurdly low. Hell, all of us on this forum would likely fall within their pro-AGW camp, going by their metrics. You need only agree that it's not impossible that mankind is making climate change worse. It's like having a steeplechase but replacing the walls and hurdles with parking lot speed bumps.)

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr

So you'll accept sloppy 'science' as fact when REAL scientists are discussing the methodology and are having serious questions about it. I did astronomy as a hobby in high school. i ground my own 8" mirror while in 9th grade, read all the Astronomy and Sky and Telescope mags and read physics and astronomy books I could get my hands on. Sure, it was a hobby, but I did learn a lot of what was going on. When I started at NASA I spent time with many planetary scientists as I fixed their computers. Much was just me asking them how they knew, or were able to discover about various subjects from how you can build an image from heat waves, or how they knew what was going on inside the sun, or even discussing unmanned exploration devices. They were happy to talk to me because I wasn't asking stupid beginner questions. I was on-site support when they had these meetings and such. While I don't understand the really complex stuff during some of these meetings that became heated discussions, after a while you knew who knew their stuff and who didn't or was being political. Some of these scientists and engineers had other hobbies in common with me and we'd talk about that. Some of these scientists were my friends.

All this just makes a lot of your positions even more unfathomable.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

All scientists currently studying climate change are sloppy? Or the ones that you saw interact with your scientist friends at NASA?

The debates at NASA. This is where I get to hear the back n forth, and see the AGW crowd back pedal. I don't know ALL scientists, which should have been obvious, just like Besson hasn't read through every one of the (insert inflated number here) papers.

The debates at NASA. This is where I get to hear the back n forth, and see the AGW crowd back pedal. I don't know ALL scientists, which should have been obvious, just like Besson hasn't read through every one of the (insert inflated number here) papers.

So these scientists are not doing to be deemed as non-sloppy until you have had a chance to meet all of these scientists and watch them debate?

1) There are probably thousands of them all over the world, do you intend to vet them all?
2) Do you need to know scientists who come up with vaccinations to trust their work, or is it just global warming scientists that are sloppy?
3) If the latter, do you realize that they abide by the same scientific method and peer review process?
4) Why do you feel uncomfortable with trusting the vast amount of peer review that has taken place? Is it solely based on your personal experiences?
5) If so, is it possible that your personal experiences are too small of a sample to really paint a broad picture? There is a ton of data that suggests they might be. What do you say to the argument that deeming all of the scientists you haven't personally met as sloppy is sloppy on your part?

The BBC claims it is important to allow other views on air to spout demonstrably false claims about climate change and global temperatures in particular because thy have to show "balance" in their reporting.

"During the interview, Lord Lawson said that "official figures" showed that "during this past 10 years, if anything... average world temperature has slightly declined".
But speaking in a follow-up discussion on Friday morning, Dr Peter Stott from the UK Met Office said the former Chancellor had got the facts wrong.
"We know that 2016 was the warmest on record, over a degree warmer than late 19th Century levels, so this claim that we heard from Nigel Lawson that there's been cooling is simply not true," he told the BBC.
His view was echoed by Prof Richard Betts from the University of Exeter.
"The official figures do not show that the global mean temperature 'has slightly declined'. In fact, they show the opposite - global mean temperature has increased during the past 10 years," he said in a statement.
"The last three years were warmer than the previous seven, and indeed were the warmest on record, and this year is also shaping up to be nearly as warm (probably not quite as warm as last year since the influence of the El Nino has passed, but still a very warm year).""

I am most vexxed by the last paragraph (on the web page), in which the BBC state that:
""The BBC's role is to hear different views so listeners are informed about all sides of debate and we are required to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality."

This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!

1) There are probably thousands of them all over the world, do you intend to vet them all?
2) Do you need to know scientists who come up with vaccinations to trust their work, or is it just global warming scientists that are sloppy?
3) If the latter, do you realize that they abide by the same scientific method and peer review process?
4) Why do you feel uncomfortable with trusting the vast amount of peer review that has taken place? Is it solely based on your personal experiences?
5) If so, is it possible that your personal experiences are too small of a sample to really paint a broad picture? There is a ton of data that suggests they might be. What do you say to the argument that deeming all of the scientists you haven't personally met as sloppy is sloppy on your part?

I have seen the 'science' not being as settled as your hero AlGore would have you believe. People are human and not as precise as you assume. Where are the validated predictions of rapid changes in ocean levels? Your assumptions on how science works is at best fiction.

I don't know what this means, but I would be really interested in your paraphrasing why you feel it is that people like myself, Laminar, Oreocookie, etc. are frustrated with Badkosh and Chongo on this issue?

I don't know what this means, but I would be really interested in your paraphrasing why you feel it is that people like myself, Laminar, Oreocookie, etc. are frustrated with Badkosh and Chongo on this issue?

Maybe you can help bridge this gap.

1) Global warming will potentially destroy the planet.
2) People who scoff at it are complicit in the potential destruction of the planet.
3) This is bad behavior, it therefore deserves punishment, and/or attempts to alter it.